User talk:2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:E0E5

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:E0E5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I fail to understand how my post tonight is "vandalism", let alone something requiring Revision Deletion. In no way were my activities intended to deliberately harm Wikipedia, which is what vandalism is defined as on the respective policy page. If ArbCom believes that the initial post at Wikipediocracy was made by a troll, I'll defer to their judgement, and assuming they are correct, no action is required. But to accuse me of vandalism (again, which is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia) simply for sharing information that I believed to be potentially relevant and of ArbCom's interest, is really overkill. Unrelated: if indeed the WPO post was made by a troll, that's truly despicable and disgusting behavior (to pretend that someone has died if they in fact have not). 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:E0E5 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please use WPO for entertainment, not Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Johnuniq: That doesn't answer my question as to how my actions were "vandalism". Can you please specifically describe how my actions were a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia? 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:E0E5 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

---